Preamble

The House met—after the Adjournment on Thursday, 23rd October—Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRITS.

For the Borough of Hampstead, in the room of George Balfour, esquire, deceased.

For the Borough of Brighton, in the room of Sir John Francis Ashley Erskine, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., commonly called Lord Erskine (Chiltern Hundreds).

For the County of Middlesex (Harrow Division), in the room of Major Sir Isidore Salmon, C.B.E., deceased.—[Mr. Grimston.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SUPPLIES.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any statement to make on the coal situation?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): My hon. Friend has no doubt seen the full statement on the coal situation made on behalf of the Government in another place on 1st October. There is little in the way of detailed information that I can properly add at present. The steps taken to increase production and to reduce consumption, then reported, have continued throughout the month and we start the winter with distributed stocks appreciably larger than a year ago. But there is no room for complacency: when all possible economies have been made in the consumption of fuel, power and light, our coal needs this winter will still be greater than last winter and if we are to avoid a repetition of last winter's local shortages we must press steadily on to win more coal and to see that transport is available to distribute it.

Mr. Smith: Will my hon. Friend say how near we have got to the target of

production for which we set out; and, secondly, will the situation necessitate any rationing of household coal for the winter?

Mr. Grenfell: In answer to the last part of the Question, I do not anticipate that we are very near to the point when we must ration coal, and I hope it will not be necessary at all. With regard to the other part of the Question, we have not reached the target figure, which was put forward with the idea that more men would be available than has already been the case. Production has been rising steadily in the last few weeks, and I think it is not now quite so much a question of production as of adequate transport.

ANNUAL REPORTS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether it is intended to publish an Annual Report for 1940, similar in form to other Departments?

Mr. Grenfell: No, Sir, on the general question I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 13th May last.

Mr. Smith: Might I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the question, and issue an abbreviated report dealing with safety and health matters?

Mr. Grenfell: I will consider that point and let my hon. Friend know as soon as possible.

COLLIERY CANTEENS.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give particulars of the progress made in the provision of canteen services at coal mines?

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of mines' canteens in existence at the end of October; and for how many miners they catered?

Mr. Grenfell: The number of colliery canteens in operation on 31st October was about 531, catering for some 500,000 miners. Canteens were being arranged at 290 other collieries, and when these are in operation 90 per cent. of the miners at pits employing more than 50 men will have been catered for. It is the intention to improve the service, where possible, as opportunities arise, and experiments are in progress with this object.

Mr. Griffiths: Can my hon. Friend state in how many of these canteens full meals have been provided for?

Mr. Grenfell: I cannot give the exact numbers. They serve only for a small proportion of the' miners.

Mr. Griffiths: Are steps being taken to increase that proportion?

Mr. Grenfell: Wherever possible, but my hon. Friend must realise that the choice of the form of canteen provision is offered in every case to the local organisation and to the men.

Sir H. Williams: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a circular issued by the Ministry of Information which would appear to indicate that the number of canteens is really far in excess of the number in existence?

Mr. Grenfell: I have not seen that circular.

Sir H. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister for a copy?

CHILDREN'S OVERSEAS RECEPTION SCHEME.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Undersecretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to Canada and the United States of America, and especially on the provisions made for the welfare of British children now in North America?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): During the Parliamentary Recess I paid a visit to Canada to see the 1,530 children officially sent out last year by the Children's Overseas Reception Board. I visited the nine Provinces in which they are living, and found them everywhere in good health and spirits. I also had most satisfactory discussions with the welfare authorities in each province on problems connected with the children. It was generally agreed in Canada that the evacuation scheme has proved a most successful form of temporary overseas settlement.
I also visited the United States, where I discussed with Mr. Marshall Field problems arising in respect of the 859

children from the United Kingdom for whom his Committee has assumed responsibility. Here too I was deeply impressed by all the arrangements made for the children's welfare.
It has been agreed that in the case of privately evacuated children, where circumstances warrant it, the United States Committee will assume responsibility for them. Similarly, in Canada the Children's Overseas Reception Board, in agreement with the Dominion Government, will assume responsibility for privately evacuated children in cases of proved difficulty or need. Throughout my tour I conveyed to the Canadian and United States authorities and to the foster parents the deep gratitude not only of the United Kingdom Government but of the parents of Britain.

Mr. Thorne: When the children arrive at working age, who is responsible for getting them employment?

Mr. Shakespeare: In Canada, there are about 14 children, boys and girls, who have reached school-leaving age, and good jobs have been found for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

CITY OF MONTREAL LOANS.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Undersecretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any statement to make with regard to the proposals of the city of Montreal for the future service of its loans issued in the United Kingdom.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I have been asked to reply. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have not been asked to intervene in this matter and could not usefully do so, and accordingly I have no statement to make.

Sir J. Mellor: As these loans are liable to be requisitioned, is not the Treasury interested as well as the bond holders?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot add to what I have said.

INCOME TAX (MARRIED PERSONS).

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that the present method of tax assessment on the sum of


the incomes of husband and wife makes it difficult, and frequently impossible, for a married woman to accept or to continue in employment for which she may be specially suited; that women holding university degrees, who have accepted office in Government Departments have had to resign because, when they have paid full Income Tax, extra help in their home, lunches out and fares to their work, they are out-of-pocket and cannot afford to go to work; and whether in these circumstances he proposes taking any steps to rectify the position;
(2) whether he will consider the application of the principle of the Married Women's Property Act to the taxation of married persons, so that the income of married women shall be assessed and taxed separately from that of their husbands?

Sir K. Wood: I do not accept the assumption on which the first Question is based. I would point out that it is a long-established principle of Income Tax law that the incomes of a husband and wife living together should be aggregated for Income Tax purposes and departure from this principle would, in many cases, lead to an increased burden of tax. Under the existing law in cases in which a wife has earned income, in addition to the earned income relief in respect of that income, there is allowed an increase of the ordinary personal allowance for married persons equal to nine-tenths of the wife's earned income up to a maximum of £45. The married personal allowance may thus be increased from the general level of £140 to a maximum of £185, where the wife is an earner. The treatment of husband and wife for taxation purposes in the same way as single persons would involve the withdrawal of this increased personal allowance and the giving to both husband and wife of the personal allowance of £80 appropriate to single persons instead of the giving against the joint income of the higher personal allowance appropriate to married persons.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable amount of evidence to substantiate the point that I have raised, and is he also aware that the primary cause is the abnormally high direct taxation to-day and that it is also having a serious social and

moral effect upon our people in so much as many find it more economical to live together than to enter into the state of holy matrimony?

Sir K. Wood: I have no particular evidence of that. The matter was considered by the Royal Commission, which came to the conclusion, taking the matters set forth in my answer as a whole, that it is best to keep the law as at present.

Sir H. Williams: Is the level of Income Tax the same now as it was when the Royal Commission sat?

Mr. John Wilmot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the treatment of married women in the matter of earned income makes their employment unremunerative?

Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that, while he discriminates in this extraordinary way against women in the matter of Income Tax, he has no right to pay women lower compensation than men for war injury when that payment is made entirely from taxation?

NATIONAL SAVINGS COMMITTEE (HEADQUARTERS STAFF).

Squadron-Leader Hulbert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount paid in salary, and the amount of expenses paid, to the following officials of the National Savings Committee headquarters' staff, for the 12 months ending the last convenient date: Sir Albert Clavering, Mr. Shrapnell Smith, Mr. Buchanan Taylor and Mr. Paul Addis.

Sir K. Wood: The first three gentlemen referred to receive no salary but an allowance towards their expenses. This is at the rate of £250 and £300 per annum respectively for Sir Albert Clavering and Mr. Buchanan Taylor, while Mr. Shrapnell Smith received £72 17s. 3d. during the year ended 30th September, 1941. Mr. Paul Addis is in receipt of a salary of £1,250 per annum and is entitled to claim travelling and subsistence allowance on the recognised scale.

GOVERNMENT BORROWING.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that while £104,778,000 was collected by way of National War Bonds between 26th July and 30th August, there


were £32,500,000 Treasury deposits redeemed in the same period; and whether this represents in the main a transfer of bank investments from Treasury deposit lending to National War Bond investment;
(2) what is the per £100 cost to the State of borrowing by means of Treasury deposits and National War Bonds, respectively?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. Interest is payable at the rate of 1⅜ per cent. per annum on Treasury Deposit Receipts and of 2½ per cent. per annum on National War Bonds. The former have a currency of six months and the latter of roughly 10 years.

Mr. Woodburn: Is there any reason why there should be this change, which obviously puts an extra burden on the State, and would it not be advisable to keep to one form of borrowing, even if it is for six months at a time?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The hon. Member will appreciate that it is also important to get long-term loans of this nature.

Mr. Loftus: Is not the money invested in Treasury deposits a purely inflationary creation of money, and therefore, should not the charge to the State be only the cost of creation, which is estimated by economists to be 1 per cent.?

Sir K. Wood: As the hon. Member knows, I do not take that view.

WAR DAMAGE ACT.

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total sum received in respect of Part II, the Business Equipment Scheme, of the War Damage Act, covering the two periods for which compulsory premiums arc payable, and the total sum received in respect to Part III of the Voluntary Chattels insurance; and how much has been paid out in respect to claims under Part II and claims under Part III, respectively?

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Andrew Duncan): The total amount collected in premiums to 4th November, 1941, under the business scheme, including the farming scheme, was in round figures £37,000,000, and under the private

chattels scheme £5,000,000. I regret that it is not in the public interest to give information as to the sums paid in respect of claims.

Sir G. Broadbridge: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what is the balance of cash that remains in hand?

WIRELESS HIGH TENSION BATTERIES.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that whole villages are practically deprived of wireless reception through lack of high-tension batteries; and whether he will arrange with the Secretary of State for Air that the thousands of batteries partly used by the Royal Air Force may be, as and when replaced, made available to the public as second-hand batteries?

Sir A. Duncan: In recent weeks there has been a substantial increase in the production of high-tension batteries, which will in due course reflect itself in retail stocks. Particular attention is being given to the question of supplies for outlying districts. As regards the second part of the Question, I understand that discarded batteries are used for recording and training purposes, but I will discuss the matter further with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air.

HOPS (EXPORT PERMITS)

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, notwithstanding contracts; already entered into with the Hops Marketing Board, the Board of Trade have refused permits for the export of hops to South Africa for the use of two large English companies engaged in the brewing trade there; and, as at the same time permits have been issued for the export of English hops to Eire and to Kenya and to other Dominions and Colonies and, as the two English companies trading in South Africa are engaged largely in supplying beer to South African troops under contract with the Government of the Union of South Africa, if he will reconsider this decision?

Sir A. Duncan: Because of the need to conserve supplies of hops, licences for the export of this season's crops for brewing are not being issued. An exception has been made in the case of Eire because of


the substantial exports of beer from Eire to the United Kingdom. This policy has been adopted after consultation with the Ministry of Food.

Brigadier-General Brown: Will my right hon. Friend inquire into cases where concerns think they have been very unfairly treated, compared with other brewers? Will he give me an opportunity of bringing their case before him?

Sir A. Duncan: I am always most willing to look into any case further, but I should very much doubt whether any useful purpose would be served, because this is policy, and has been settled in view of the supplies that are available.

Brigadier-General Brown: It is not policy but what is felt to be unfairness which I wish my right hon. Friend to consider.

Sir A. Duncan: I shall be very glad to consider that.

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the 1,541 Palestinians, presumed prisoners of war, were left in Greece unsurrendered; whether they were left without arms to defend themselves; whether British officers were in command; if so, did they stop with their men; and what proportion of the Palestinians left in Greece and Crete were Jews and Arabs, respectively?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): The latest figures from the Middle East show that the number of Palestinians missing in Crete and Greece total 1,444. Of these, 1,023 are Jews, of whom 583 are unaccounted for and 440 known to be prisoners of war, and 421 Arabs, of whom 376 are unaccounted for and 45 prisoners of war. All the Palestinian personnel in Greece and Crete belonged to pioneer or labour units, of whom a proportion were armed. They were commanded by British officers, and these naturally remained with their men. I may add that I strongly deprecate my right hon. Friend's suggestion, in this and other recent Questions, that the conduct of British officers in this war has been in any way inconsistent with the high traditions of the Service.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it is stories like these which are spreading through the bazaars of the Near East; and that they must be answered in order that any recruiting can continue at all?

Captain Margesson: I really do not think it is in the interests of the country or of the Army to give publicity to rumours of that sort.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for War how many British military prisoners of war are interned in the camp of Miranda-del-Ebro, in Spain; whether he is satisfied with their treatment; and what steps have been taken, or are contemplated, to secure their release and repatriation?

Captain Margesson: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that he does not know the answer to this Question now? Have any previous inquiries been made? Have such inquiries not produced any information?

Captain Margesson: I have not all the necessary information at my disposal, or I would not have spoken about having inquiries made.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise that at the present moment, in a neutral country, some thousands of British subjects are illegally imprisoned? Have not the Government made up their mind what they are going to do about it?

Captain Margesson: As I have said, I am making further inquiries.

Sir H. Williams: Can any British subject be a prisoner of war in Spain, since we are at peace with that country?

Captain Margesson: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TRAINING (RESERVED OCCUPATIONS).

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for the training of men in reserved occupations in the weapons they will use


in event of an invasion, without introducing compulsion in the organisation of the Home Guard?

Captain Margesson: Men in reserved occupations are encouraged to join the Home Guard, and large numbers of them have taken advantage of the facilities thus afforded for training in the use of weapons. So far as I can see, no advantage would be gained by introducing additional facilities outside the organisation of the Home Guard, as my hon. and gallant Friend appears to suggest. Apart from other undesirable effects, such a scheme would result in duplication of effort and uneconomical use of our training resources.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend explain how duplication of effort can occur? Is he aware that in many country districts there arc: lonely farms where, if facilities are afforded, men will be available in case of invasion, and where they will be only too glad to be trained in the use of arms?

Captain Margesson: I think they can get their training through the Home Guard.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: In view of the number of women who want to help, could not the War Department deal with them gracefully and enable them to take part in the war effort in this way?

PAY AND ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, with the object of decreasing the difference in pay received by the married and single soldier, he will consider reducing the qualifying allotment of non-commissioned officers and men by 3s. 6d. per week and increasing the wife's allowance by a similar amount to be contributed by the State?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir. I do not consider that the difference in the circumstances of married and single men in the Army can be regarded as excessive in comparison with similar differences in civil life.

Mr. Crowder: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that the Treasury make up the pay of civil servants who join the Army, and thus admit the principle that some extra assistance is needed? Will he reconsider the position of the married men in the Army?

Captain Margesson: I do not think that the comparative positions of married and single men in the Army are really very different from what they are in civil life.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that soldiers serving at distant stations, whose civilian wages at home are being made up, find themselves, on receiving promotion, involved in difficulties regarding overpayments made to their wives; and whether in all such cases the men involved will be given the opportunity of transferring their increases home, thus automatically balancing the overpayments made to their wives, or whether he will take other suitable steps to avoid this anomaly?

Captain Margesson: Arrangements already exist by which a soldier stationed overseas whose pay account is kept at his station may apply to his commanding officer for a remittance to be sent to the appropriate regimental paymaster at home for transmission to his wife or other person. The pay accounts of soldiers serving in the Mediterranean, Africa and the Middle East are now maintained at home, and in cases where the balance of civil pay is made up from public funds a revised procedure has recently been adopted in order to prevent overissues in future.

Mr. Bellenger: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether, in the case of these soldiers stationed overseas whose accounts are kept at home, there is any speedy procedure, such as the telegraph, for dealing with applications made by the men overseas for part of their money to be transferred to their wives? Otherwise there is sometimes hardship.

Captain Margesson: I cannot say exactly how information is received, but we are trying to obtain it as soon as possible.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCE.

Mr. Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for War what objections, other than finance, there exist in the way of treating dependants of serving soldiers in the same way as wives in respect of the Government allowance; and how much such a change would cost the State?

Captain Margesson: The difference between family allowance and dependants'


allowance is based on the generally-accepted principle that a man's responsibilities towards his wife and children differ, both in kind and degree, from his responsibilities to other dependants. For this reason, family allowance in respect of a wife and children is regarded as a normal service emolument of a married soldier who fulfils the prescribed conditions. Dependants' allowance, on the other hand, was introduced as a special war-time measure, to meet hardship arising from the inability of a man who has joined the Colours to continue during his service a contribution that he was previously making towards the support of a dependant other than a wife or children. The rate of allowance is, therefore, determined partly by the amount of his contribution in civil life and partly by the circumstances of the dependant during his service.
As regards the second part of the Question, I am afraid that it is not possible to form any reliable estimate of the cost of such a change, as particulars of dependants not covered by the present scheme are not available.

Mr. Crowder: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Dominion Governments make the same payments to widowed mothers as to wives? Will he consult with the High Commissioner as to the procedure adopted by the Canadian Government?

Captain Margesson: The Canadian Government make their own arrangement, which are quite different from ours.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there are shameful cases of neglect and ill-treatment so far as widowed mothers are concerned?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the rules governing the issue of dependants' allowances are being made to conform with the new concession indicated in Paragraph 8 of the Command Paper, whereby the first 4s. of a soldier's pay is ignored when assessing amount of war service grant?

Captain Margesson: My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. Paragraph 8 of the Command Paper to which I assume he refers does not state that the first 4s. of a soldier's pay shall be ignored for the purpose of assessing the

amount of a war service grant, but that, where a man's pay does not exceed 4s. a day, the war service grant will be calculated on the assumption that the family receives only the amount of the qualifying allotment laid down in the case of Army family allowances. The contribution which a soldier is required to make from his pay as a condition of receiving dependants' allowance is in no case more than the allotment assumed by the Ministry of Pensions in assessing a war service grant.

Mr. Bellenger: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the concession granted by the Ministry of Pensions in respect of war service grants is more favourable than the rule adopted by the Service Ministries in assessing dependants' allowances?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir; that is not so. In some cases the rules are rather more favourable.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many applications for dependants' allowances have been received; and what percentage of these has been rejected in the case of soldiers and women members serving with the Army, respectively; and what is the average rate of allowance paid;
(2) how many dependants' allowances have been granted to unmarried dependants living with soldiers as their wives?

Captain Margesson: Up to 18th October, 1941, 407,556 applications for dependants' allowances had been received. Over the whole period, the percentage of men's claims rejected was 51 per cent., but since April last this figure has fallen to 35 per cent. In more than half the cases where an application was rejected the soldier stated that he did not wish to make an allotment from his pay if the allowance were not granted. The percentage of women's claims rejected was 48 per cent. The average rate of allowance now in payment is 18s. a week. Separate figures are not available for grants of dependants' allowance to unmarried dependants living with soldiers as their wives.

WAR OFFICE EMPLOYEE (DISMISSAL).

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to


the case of Mr. Charles Stevens, whose services at the War Office were dispensed with in 1935 and who has since pressed repeatedly for an inquiry to be opened as to the justice and manner of his dismissal; and whether he is prepared to institute such inquiry?

Captain Margesson: The case of Mr. Stevens was very carefully considered in 1935 before the decision was taken to dispense with his services, and it has since been re-examined by two of my predecessors in the light of representations made by Mr. Stevens. I have myself personally studied the papers, and I am satisfied that the decision did not involve any injustice to Mr. Stevens.

Sir A. Southby: Has Mr. Stevens been fully informed of the circumstances and the reasons for the decision?

Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir.

SKILLED TRADESMEN.

Mr. Banfield: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider operating a scheme whereby tradesmen joining the Army, after receiving preliminary training and after passing their trade test and for whom no work or equipment is found in their own trade, might be given a temporary discharge and be sent back to their previous employer, subject to immediate recall to their unit?

Captain Margesson: Arrangements already exist whereby individual skilled men may be temporarily released from the Army. I am at present considering whether the present arrangements can be extended in any way.

CONTRACTS.

Mr. Selley: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Burrell, Deputy Procurator Fiscal, and of Mr. Sheriff Gibb, when William Low Grant, a partner in the firm of T. R. Grant and Son, was sentenced at Dundee on Friday, 17th October, 1941; and will he issue the necessary instructions that persons who are convicted of these, and similar offences, shall not be employed under War Office contracts or sub-contracts?

Captain Margesson: I am aware of this case, and, in accordance with longstanding instructions, the firm has been removed from the list of War Office contractors.

FOLYJON PARK, ASCOT.

Sir G. Broadbridge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will issue orders for inquiries to be made into the conditions under which parties and entertainments are held for serving soldiers at Folyjon Park, near Ascot; and will he consider placing Folyjon Park out of bounds to all ranks?

Captain Margesson: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Sir Waldron Smithers: In making inquiries, can my right hon. and gallant Friend satisfy himself that there is no leakage of information to the enemy as the result of these parties?

Captain Margesson: I do not know that there are any parties until I hear the result of my inquiries.

DIRECTOR OF ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War who is the senior tank officer at the War Office; and how long has he held that position?

Captain Margesson: The Director of Armoured Fighting Vehicles at the War Office advises the Chief of the Imperial General Staff on the organisation and equipment of the Royal Armoured Corps. This appointment has been held since 20th September last by Major-General A. W. C. Richardson.

Sir W. Smithers: Is there any likelihood of General Fuller being appointed, and, if so, will my right hon. and gallant Friend make most careful inquiries into his past record?

OWEN GUN.

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement on the use, value and country of construction of Owen guns?

Captain Margesson: The Owen 9 millimetre sub-machine gun is an Australian invention. Tests have been carried out in Australia and a model is being sent to the United Kingdom for examination.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPARE PARTS).

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Army motor-vehicles are out of use for the want of spare parts; and will he consider having these put in order in priority to building new ones?

Captain Margesson: I am afraid that the number of vehicles out of use for want of spare parts at any given time could only be ascertained by calling for returns from every Command at home and abroad. Such information as it available, however, indicates that the percentage of vehicles out of use for any cause compares very favourably with that of the largest commercial transport undertakings, and there is no undue delay in putting them in order.

Mr. Purbrick: Would it be possible to get these motor vehicles repaired as soon as possible instead of building new ones?

Captain Margesson: I quite agree that it is very important to repair these motor vehicles as soon as possible.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it necessary to have Army vehicles conveyed all the way from the North Midlands to the South when they pass through districts where there are repair shops not fully in employment?

Captain Margesson: I must have notice of a detailed question of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

JURORS (EXPENSES).

Mr. McNeil: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that jurors for criminal trials in the West and Northern Scottish Highlands, in addition to the inconvenience of being away from work or business for several days, must also bear the cost of overnight living expenses and that no machinery exists for reimbursement; and if he will take steps to remedy this grievance?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): There is at present no statutory authority authorising the payment of expenses to jurors in criminal cases. My right hon. Friend is considering the case in the light of representations he has received, and perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his Question at a later date.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Gentleman consider, instead of providing overnight living expenses, locking them up in gaol overnight, and perhaps they will have a better sense of justice?

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS (DISCUSSION).

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish Members of Parliament attended the conference which he recently convened in Edinburgh to consider Scottish questions; and whether it is proposed to develop this expression of Scottish national feeling by delegating to such a Scottish Parliamentary conference the discussion of Scottish-local matters which now come before the British Parliament, and thus increase the time available for urgent general subjects?

Mr. Westwood: More than one-third of the Scottish Members of Parliament found themselves able to accept my right hon. Friend's invitation to visit St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh, during the Recess. The main purpose of the gathering was to give Members an opportunity of meeting the principal officers of the Scottish Departments. As my right hon. Friend indicated in reply to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) on 21st October, it would be impossible during the war, when the United Kingdom is fighting for its very existence, to propose legislation raising complex and, no doubt, controversial issues affecting the machinery of Parliamentary government.

Mr. McGovern: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether, after the war, it is proposed to apply the Atlantic Charter to Scotland?

Mr. Kirkwood: Can the Minister say when we are to have the next meeting in Edinburgh?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

ORANGES.

Lieutenant Butcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the general manager of the King's Lynn Co-operative Society reported to the King's Lynn Food Control Committee that early in September 224 cases of oranges were received by a local wholesaler for distribution among about 400 retailers and that, although many retailers of fruit had less than 100 oranges to distribute, instructions were given to the wholesaler by the Port of London Orange Panel for 20 cases to be allocated to one branch of a chain


store; whether any disciplinary action has been taken against the persons responsible for issuing instructions for such unfair distribution; and whether he is taking steps to see that the distribution of oranges is, in future, confined to established fruiterers?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): The statement referred to in the Question has been brought to my notice. The allocation of 20 cases to the chain store to which my hon. Friend presumably refers was made on the instructions of my Department, this being the quantity to which they were entitled on the basis of their pre-war sales. There is, therefore, no case for disciplinary action. Distribution is already confined to traders who regularly sold oranges before the war.

Major C. S. Taylor: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend appreciate that oranges are being sold in certain places by this particular chain store at branches where they have no fruit or vegetable department?

Major Lloyd George: If my hon. and gallant Friend has a case in mind, perhaps ho will bring it to my notice, but I am only concerned here with actual allocation, and it is based on their pre-war sales.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House how chain stores prove their sales on a pre-war basis?

Major Lloyd George: I suppose in the same way as any other stores. They must show proof, and it is on that, that they get their allocation.

POTATOES.

Lieutenant Butcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that a considerable portion of the protato crop is subject to blight, and therefore is not likely to keep well; and whether he proposes to take special measures to ensure that the best-keeping potatoes are not marketed until after the disposal of those liable to wastage?

Major Lloyd George: I am advised that the extent of potato blight is not considerable, having regard to the estimated size of the crop, and is much less than at one time appeared likely. In regard

to the latter part of the Question, arrangements are being made as was done last season to accumulate reserves of good keeping stocks of potatoes, and for suitable early disposal of crops which shows signs of premature deterioration.

FOOD PRODUCTION, TASMANIA AND NEW ZEALAND.

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether growers of pulses in Tasmania and New Zealand have lately made changes in their crop areas and are now producing an increased quantity of dried blue peas for human consumption in this country and will our purchases of this important food product from Tasmania and New Zealand be restricted or adversely affected by the operation of the Lease-Lend Act?

Major Lloyd George: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question is "Yes," and to the latter part "No."

FACTORY CANTEENS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will indicate what progress has been made in the provision of canteens at factories and workshops; and what further special provisions are being made for heavy workers?

Major Lloyd George: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that the latest figures available in respect of the provision of canteens at factories and workshops are those given in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) on 2nd October. In reply to the last part of the Question, as I mentioned in the Debate on the same day, the principle has been accepted of granting increased allowances of certain foods such as meat, sugar and fats to industrial canteens. My Department are now working out the details of the scheme. Instructions have already been issued to local food offices for the classification of establishments for this purpose, and it is hoped shortly to issue instructions as to the steps to be taken for making the extra supplies of food available to establishments which come within the appropriate categories.

Mr. Griffiths: In those cases in which it is found impossible to get communal


meals for workers employed in heavy industries, will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider the question of introducing the individual ration?

Major Lloyd George: I would like to look into that question.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Has the Department paid any attention to the very large railway and engineering shops on munitions work to see whether there are any canteens in those works?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the primary purpose of my Department is to provide the food, but I will certainly look into that matter.

CHAIN STORES (RATIONED FOODS).

Captain Plugge: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will give a list of those rationed foods which chain stores are not licensed to sell?

Major Lloyd George: No list such as my hon. Friend desires is in existence.

ONIONS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that many onions, particularly bull necks, are going bad owing to the refusal to allow growers to sell direct to the public; and whether he will speed up the sales machinery to prevent wastage?

Major Lloyd George: Onions which are known in the trade as "bull necked" onions have been sold through the normal channels of trade under the provisions of the Green Onions (Maximum Prices) Order and there is no evidence of waste. Dry bulb onions are being distributed by the National Vegetable Marketing Company.

CHEESE.

Major Lloyd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the improved cheese position, and the fact that cheese can now be served in restaurants as a subsidiary dish and no longer only as a main dish, he can now make arrangements to enable farmers and smallholders, working on their own farms, to receive the supplementary ration, which is now available only to agricultural workers holding agricultural unemployment insurance cards?

Major Lloyd George: The special cheese ration was granted to certain categories of workers, including agricultural workers, who, as a rule, are unable to use works canteens and must consume their luncheon at their work. These conditions do not apply to farmers and small holders working on their own farms, who are generally able to get home for their midday meal. I regret therefore that the special cheese ration cannot be extended to them

MONTENEGRO (ITALIAN ATROCITIES).

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the atrocities being committed against the civilian population by Italian punitive expeditions into Montenegro; and why military objectives in Rome have not been bombed as a reprisal?

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether there is any technical political or other objection to the bombing of Rome by our Air Forces?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): While I have no information of any particularly brutal Italian atrocities in Montenegro—I mean nothing out of the ordinary compared with their usual behaviour—I have recently made it clear that retribution for crimes of such a nature must henceforward take its place amongst the major purposes of the war. As regards the bombing of Rome, I have nothing to add to the statement in my speech in this House on 30th September.

Sir A. Southby: Will my right hon. Friend say why Rome has not been bombed; is he aware of the propaganda now being carried on in this country with the object of abolishing night bombing; and will he consider the significance of this agitation arising, just at the. moment that our position of being able to bomb our enemy objectives is getting better and better?

The Prime Minister: I do not see what the last part has to do with the Question on the Paper, which is fully covered by my Answer.

Sir T. Moore: Does my right hon. Friend really think it wise to provide a hide-out for this rat Mussolini?

The Prime Minister: I think it would be as well to have confidence in the decision of the Government, whose sole desire is to inflict the maximum amount of injury on the enemy.

Sir T. Moore: But the country as a whole is anxious. [Interruption].

Sir A. Southby: On a point of Order. I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

VISCOUNT GORT'S DESPATCHES (B.E.F. EQUIPMENT).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether any inquiry is being made into the complaints made by Viscount Gort in his despatches as to shortage of equipment; and whether the shortage of equipment was due to the failure of the Government to take the advice tendered by their official advisers during the period from December, 1937, to September, 1939?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question is that it is not proposed to hold such an inquiry, and to the second part that I was not a member of the Administration during the period in question, and I am unable, therefore, to say what advice was either tendered to or rejected by that Government.

Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that no records have been kept so that one can find out what took place?

The Prime Minister: Certainly there are records, but this deals with a specific communication.

ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (REMUNERATION).

Mr. Crowder: asked the Prime Minister whether, with the object of securing some measure of parity in the remuneration of members of the Fighting Forces and those engaged on unskilled civilian labour, he will appoint a committee to investigate the whole question of wages, bonuses, overtime, danger money and the like, with a view to securing a fairer distribution of our resources, as between the Service man and the unskilled civilian worker?

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the growing dissatisfaction at the inequalities and anomalies in the rates of remuneration as between men engaged in the Fighting Forces and those engaged in industry, in particular where men are semi- or unskilled; and what steps is ho proposing to take to remove the unfair inequalities which at present exist?

The Prime Minister: The remuneration of members of the Armed Forces is necessarily based on quite different considerations from those of civil employment, and I do not think therefore that the investigation suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Crowder) would be of assistance.

Mr. Crowder: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind that it was generally understood after the last war that such grave inequality would never be allowed again? There is a good deal of feeling in the country.

The Prime Minister: There are many Parliamentary opportunities of ventilating such grievances.

Mr. Bellenger: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House what are the different considerations as regards basing the pay of the. Forces compared with the pay of civilians?

The Prime Minister: I certainly should not attempt to do it at Question time.

PRODUCTION PRIORITIES.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister which member of the War Cabinet has the duty of deciding between conflicting priorities?

The Prime Minister: The major issues of policy which govern priority of production are determined by the War Cabinet or the Defence Committee. Conflicts of priority in the field of production are dealt with on the Production Executive or one of its subordinate bodies. Almost without exception these conflicts have been settled by agreement between the Ministers concerned. In the case of any unresolved disputes, any Minister has the right of appeal to the War Cabinet, or, in the first instance, to me. While there is no fixed procedure for referring


priority questions for decision to a particular Minister, on suitable occasions this practice is adopted.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a certain amount of anxiety—indeed, confusion— among industrialists with regard to this question of priorities? Would he appoint, not himself, because he is already overburdened, one member of the War Cabinet to be the deciding factor in a conflict?

The Prime Minister: I went into these matters very carefully and at length shortly before leaving for the Atlantic Conference. I am always considering the matter and making such changes of emphasis and adjustment as may seem desirable from time to time, but I have reached the conclusion that no general alteration of what I then laid down to the House as the best machinery is desirable.

Mr. Thorne: Do priorities vary from time to time, say from week to week?

The Prime Minister: Major priorities are sometimes varied when a different emphasis is required in accordance with the view taken of the war.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the fact that often members of the War Cabinet are absent on other important duties and sometimes out of the country, and would he not consider that from the point of view of laying the responsibility on very few shoulders?

The Prime Minister: I do not think they are unduly absent from their duties. I think they discharge their duties almost without cessation.

WAR INVENTIONS.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House of the name and composition of the committee that examines inventions submitted for the three Services; and to what extent has any individual member the power to turn down inventions or to advise that they be taken up or developed?

The Prime Minister: I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the Engineering Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. and Noble Friend Lord

Hankey, the terms of reference and composition of which were published in the Press on 30th April last. In reply to the second part of the Question, individual members of the Committee are, of course, entitled to express their opinions to their colleagues.

Sir W. Smithers: Am I right in assuming that Lord Cherwell has a deciding voice in these matters?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, he is not a member of the Committee.

ATLANTIC CHARTER (PRIME MINISTER'S ADVISERS).

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister the names of the personal advisers who accompanied him on his recent voyage in a British battleship when he met the President of the United States of America; and what were their duties?

The Prime Minister: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of those who accompanied me on my recent voyage when I met the President of the United States of America.

Sir W. Smithers: If Lord Cherwell was one of the members of the party, does not my right hon. Friend think it unwise— [Interruption].

Mr. Kirkwood: Seeing that the Prime Minister has met President Roosevelt, when is he to meet Mr. Joseph Stalin?

Following are the names:

Admiral of the Fleet Sir Dudley Pound, G.C.B., G.C.V.O. (First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff).
General Sir John Dill, K.C.B., C.M. G., D.S.O. (Chief of Imperial General Staff).
Air Chief Marshal Sir Wilfrid Freeman, K.C.B., D.S.O., M.C. (Vice-Chief of Air Staff).
Hon. Sir Alexander Cadogan, G.C.M.G., C.B. (Permanent Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs). 
Lord Cherwell. 
Mr. J. M. Martin (Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister).
Commander C. R. Thompson, O.B.E. (Personal Assistant to the Minister of Defence).

The party also included:

Colonel L. C. Hollis, C.B.E. 
Lieut.-Colonel E. I. C. Jacob (Office of the Minister of Defence) 
and the following officers of the Royal
Navy, Army and Royal Air Force:
Captain B. B. Schofield (Director of Trade Division, Admiralty). 
Commander M. G. Goodenough, D.S.O. (Plans Division, Admiralty).
Paymaster-Captain R. V. Brockman.
Brigadier V. Dykes, C.B.E. (Director of Plans War Office).
Captain A. R. S. Nutting, M.C. (Military Assistant to the C.I.G.S.).
Group Captain W. M. Yool, C.B.E. (Staff Officer to the Vice-Chief of Air Staff).

GERMANS (BRITISH GOVERNMENT SERVICE).

Sir G. Broadbridge: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that we are fighting for our existence, he will consider removing from Government service all persons of German education and of German origin?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will specify any person—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As this is the hon. Member's fourth Question, I have not called it.

The Prime Minister: I regret that I have not the opportunity of answering this Question.

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to answer this Question, I will give him leave to do so.

The Prime Minister: I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker. I hope you do not think that I am interfering with the exercise of your duties. All I wish to say is that if the hon. Gentleman will specify any person or persons he has in mind, I will give his Question such answer as it may deserve.

Mr. G. Strauss: Would not the Prime Minister agree that men educated in Germany might be particularly well equipped to help us?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Might we not fight to the last foreigner?

Mr. Bellenger: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that a precedent has been

created by your allowing a fourth Question to be answered? If that is granted now, I hope it will be granted in other cases.

Mr. Speaker: There is no question of precedent. It always was the case that if a Minister thought it necessary to give an answer to a Question, leave was always given.

LORD CHERWELL.

Sir G. Broadbridge: asked the Prime Minister what are the duties of Lord Cherwell; what are his qualifications for his post, what salary he receives, under what Vote it comes, and what are the names of his secretary and his staff?

The Prime Minister: When I was asked this Question by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on 30th July, I gave the following answer:
Lord Cherwell is one of my personal assistants and advises me as he has for many years upon the scientific and statistical aspects of our national defence. He is the head of the Statistical branch which I formed when at the Admiralty at the outbreak of war to collect and collate all the figures of the various Departments and is now specially charged with the duty of warning me of short fallings in any part of our war supply.
As Professor of Physics at Oxford University he was in receipt of a salary of £1,400 a year. But since practically his whole time was from the beginning of the war engaged in official work, I thought it right that £1,000 a year should be paid him by the State. The remaining £400 is still paid him by the University.
Since his elevation to the Peerage Lord Cherwell has expressed his wish to serve in an honorary capacity, but I do not consider this would be right in view of the continuous demands I make upon him at all hours of the night and day.
The number of Lord Cherwell's staff is 23, and I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the particulars asked for by the hon. Member.

Following are the particulars:

The number of Lord Cherwell's staff is 23. The names and salaries of those over £400 a year are as follow: —



£


Mr. R. F. Harrod
1,300


Mr. G. D. A. MacDougall
750


Mr. G. L. S. Shackle 
600


Mr. H. W. Robinson
600


Mr. D. G. Champernowne
600


Mr. J. L. Tuck
600


Miss H. Makower
480


Mr. D. M. Bensusan-Butt
355



£120 allowance.

[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1941; cols. 1395–96, Vol. 373.]

This was the answer I gave on 30th July; I should now add that, as I have


been unable to prevail upon Lord Cherwell to accept any salary for the invaluable assistance which he gives me, there is at present no Vote required. But I should be ready at any time to furnish opportunities for Debate by putting down my own salary.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is he not worth much more?

ABYSSINIA.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether the agreement between the Emperor of Ethiopia and His Majesty's Government has now been concluded; whether its terms can be made known; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that it is now six months since the Emperor's return to his country as its lawful sovereign, the agreement will be expedited?

The Prime Minister: The actual terms of the agreement are still under discussion.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Prime Minister aware that this long delay is causing great uneasiness both in Ethiopia itself and among friends of Ethiopia in this country, and can he explain why it is taking so long to arrive at an agreement?

The Prime Minister: This matter has to be carefully considered, and communications with Abyssinia take some time, but I can assure my hon. Friend that no undue or needless delay is taking place.

GREYHOUND RACING.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered a letter forwarded on behalf of Lambton D Colliery Coal Production Committee, in the county of Durham, in which it is stated that a good deal of absenteeism is due to greyhound racing on ordinary working days, and that, in the interest of the country's war needs for more coal, this dog racing should be stopped on working days; and whether he will have an investigation made into this matter and, if necessary, take appropriate action?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. I have seen the letter referred to. Greyhound racing

is by arrangement limited to one meeting a week at each track and afternoon meetings are held only on Saturdays, public holidays and the local early closing day. Except for one track where licensing difficulties arise, greyhound racing in Durham County will in future take place on Saturday afternoons only.

Mr. Lawson: Am I to take it that there is agreement that on all the courses in Durham the meetings will take place on Saturday afternoons?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, except in the case of the one track concerning which licensing difficulties arose.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

REGULATION 18B (JUDICIAL DECISION).

Commander Bower: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, having regard to the constitutional position revealed by the judgment of the House of Lords in the case Liversidge v. Anderson and Another, he will himself introduce legislation to provide safeguards against abuse of the absolute powers of arrest and detention at present possessed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department?
(2) whether, having regard to the grave constitutional issues raised by the judgment of the House of Lords in the case Liversidge v. Anderson and Another, he will introduce legislation to give effect to the interpretation of the wording of Regulation 18B, supported by Lord Atkin in his dissenting speech?

The Prime Minister: It is not proposed to introduce such legislation. These powers were conferred upon His Majesty's Government by the House, and we are not yet in a sufficiently secure position to abandon them.

Commander Bower: Is it not a fact that when these Regulations were originally introduced, the House took the strongest possible exception to the liberty of the subject being placed at the sole discretion of the Home Secretary, with the result, that the Regulations were changed, but that now this decision of the ultimate court of appeal has established the fact that the new words mean exactly the same as the old ones; and, therefore, should not there be some change?

The Prime Minister: Although I speak as a layman on these legal matters, I am advised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is incorrectly informed.

Sir Irving Albery: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the Motion on the Order Paper, signed by some 60 Members of the House, who represent all shades of political opinion, calling for a modification of Regulation I8B?

The Prime Minister: I regret that owing to the House just having come together again, I have not been apprised of this Motion, but there will be many facilities in the coming Session for discussing this matter and other matters which 60 or even fewer Members wish to raise.

Sir I. Albery: May I put a point of Order to you, Mr. Speaker? Does not the Prime Minister's answer show that the present procedure of the House in making known to Ministers the existence of Private Members' Motions on the Order Paper and the names appended thereto is at present quite inadequate?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question to which I can give an answer at this moment.

Mr. Silverman: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the interpretation given to Regulation I8B by Lord Atkin in his dissenting judgment is precisely the interpretation placed upon it by the then Home Secretary when the new Regulations were presented to the House, and did not the House accept those Regulations on the basis of an interpretation which the House of Lords, by a majority, has now held to be wrong?

The Prime Minister: I could not attempt to answer that matter at Question Time, as it raises a number of legal points, and I should have to refresh my memory by reading what was said when the Regulations were passed. The position of the Government is that the House conferred certain powers on them of its own free will. Those powers are being exercised. They have not been abused in any way; otherwise, the House would certainly have brought the matter up. We do not propose at the present time, while the danger continues to be so severe, to volunteer the return of such powers.

Commander Bower: I beg to give notice that, owing to the great change

which has been made by this legal decision, I and my hon. Friends will be bound to raise this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

The Prime Minister: What does the hon. and gallant Member think Parliament comes together for?

CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Home Secretary whether the British subject, who sent the telegrams to President Roosevelt, thereby irregularly evading the censorship, which telegrams are alleged to have been shown by Mr. Tyler Kent to the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay), has been prosecuted under paragraphs 1 and 4A of Defence Regulation 10; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. H. Morrison: No information could properly be given about confidential documents which were abstracted from the American Embassy, but whatever may have been the nature of the documents in question, they do not provide the slightest foundation for the suggestion that someone had been guilty of evading the censorship or contravening Defence Regulation No. 10.

Mr. McGovern: Were any of these cablegrams or messages sent by the Prime Minister behind the back of the then Prime Minister?

Mr. Morrison: I have nothing to add to the answer that I have given.

SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Lord President of the Council (1) in view of the fact that the Scientific Advisory Committee and the Engineering Advisory Committee were set up to ensure the fullest employment of scientific methods and discoveries in every field of the war effort and that the individual members of these committees are all persons with other responsibilities, what arrangements have been made to ensure continuous attention to matters with which these bodies have been set up to deal;
(2) what is the present staff employed by the Scientific Advisory Committee and Engineering Advisory Committee?

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): The members of these committees were selected largely owing to what my hon. Friend describes as their other responsibilities which place the committees in continuing touch with official and unofficial scientific and engineering activities over a wide range. As their names show, these committees are advisory and not executive bodies. It is not intended that they should duplicate the work of the Government Departments or the official or the unofficial organisations responsible in the various fields of science and engineering. Each of the committees has joint secretaries, and they receive clerical assistance from the secretariat of the War Cabinet.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend explain what is the procedure to be followed if somebody has a bright idea? Does he send it to the Department concerned or to one of the Advisory Committees?

Sir J. Anderson: That matter was dealt with in answer to a Question a short time ago, and I will see that my hon. Friend gets a copy of the answer.

MARSHAL PETAIN (TRANSFER OF ANNUITY).

Mr. Silverman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has inquired into the amount and nature of the personal funds deposited by Marshal Pétain in this country; whether MarshalPétain has been allowed to transfer either the capital or the dividends on such investments to France; and, if so, what were the circumstances entitling the Marshal to these exceptional privileges?

Sir K. Wood: Transfer has been allowed in respect of an annuity of £600 which was taken out by Marshal Pétain in sterling with a Canadian company in 1937. Exception has been made from the normal practice on the ground that Marshal Pétain is the head of a State. The contract is with a Canadian company, and the Canadian Government are still in diplomatic relations with the Vichy Government. No other sums are being transferred to Marshal Pétain, and I have no information as to any other property in this country owned by him.

Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement that he has

just made will be received with the greatest perturbation throughout the country as a whole, which will not approve of exceptional treatment being given to the head of a State who is working as hard as he can against the interests of this country in the worst life-and-death struggle that we have ever experienced?

Sir K. Wood: The Government have considered the matter, and they think that in the circumstances it would be a petty act to stop payment, and there would be no advantage in doing it.

Mr. Silverman: In that event, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the policy of his Department in refusing to allow parents whose children were sent to America on the initiation of the Government to send a single pound out of the country for the maintenance of their children there?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise.

AGRICULTURAL LAND SPECULATION (DEFENCE REGULATION).

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): During the discussions on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the view was expressed in a number of quarters in the House that steps should be taken to prevent speculation in agricultural land. The Government have been considering this matter and I am now able, with your permission, Sir, to inform the House of the conclusions that they have reached.
In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish between purchase of land for investment and purchase for speculation. So far as the former is concerned, it is not considered that any action is necessary at the present time, especially as the Government have already announced that, in so far as land purchased may subsequently become subject to public acquisition or control, any compensation will not exceed sums based on the standard of values at 31st March, 1939, and that legislation to give effect to this decision will be introduced in due course.
In the case of purchases for speculation, the operator aims at a quick turnover, resale with vacant possession and the exploitation of the sitting tenant who may be induced to pay a high price in order to avoid the loss of his farm.


It appears to the Government, therefore, that the most effective deterrent to speculation in agricultural land is to restrict the power of the purchaser to give effective notice to quit to the sitting tenant. This will also avoid the disturbance of tenants who are playing their part in the increased home food production campaign by farming their land well; disturbance which is obviously prejudicial to the national effort. It is, therefore, proposed to make a Defence Regulation providing that where the whole or any part of an agricultural holding is subject to a contract of sale made since the outbreak of war or has been sold in pursuance of a contract of sale made since that date, any notice to quit that holding or any part thereof given to the tenant so as to expire at any time after the end of the year 1941, shall be null and void unless the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be, consent in writing thereto. As at least 12 months' notice must be given in the case of an agricultural holding (with the exception of a few short leases in Scotland where only six months' notice is required), the Regulation will in general cover any case where there has been a contract of sale since the outbreak of war and a notice to quit has been given since 31st December, 1940.

Mr. Levy: Is my right hon. Friend contemplating any action which means State acquisition or control of land? Is that "Socialism in our time" by my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Hudson: The statement has already been made on behalf of the Government that, in the event of any land being required for public purposes after the war, the basis of values in 1939 will prevail.

Mr. Levy: That is not quite what my right hon. Friend said in his statement.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the change in the value of money? Will it be the money value as it was in 1939?

Mr. Hudson: That is a matter that will have to be discussed when the contemplated legislation is brought forward.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: It would be rather interesting if one could know now.

Mr. Hudson: All I am concerned with now is the Regulation that is being made

with regard to speculation in agricultural land.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I approve of what has been done, but will anyone who later on may have to come up against this Regulation have to pay in accordance with the value of money at the time of settlement and not what it was in 1939?

PRIVILEGE.

Sir Herbert Williams: At the earliest possible moment I desire to bring to your attention, Sir, this document purporting to be signed by Major Hammond Foot, which I received during the Recess. Certain paragraphs of this document seem to constitute a gross breach of the Privileges of this House. In view of the circumstances of to-day's Sitting, I would ask your permission to defer raising the precise matter of Privilege until the Sitting Day next but one after to-day.

Mr. Speaker: These matters of Privilege should always be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the hon. Member, seeing that the House has not been sitting, has raised this question at the earliest possible moment. It would be inconvenient at the end of a Session that a matter of this kind should be raised now, because the procedure which would have to be adopted, if a prima facie case were made out, could hardly be carried out. I am perfectly willing, therefore, to allow the hon. Member to raise this matter on the next but one Sitting Day.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE reported from the Select Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House [26th November], That the Co-ordinating Sub-Committee of the Committee had addressed a Memorandum to the Prime Minister for the consideration of the War Cabinet.

Twenty-fifth Report from the Select Committee brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 124].

Twenty-sixth Report from the Select Committee brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 125].

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed [No. 126].

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, ''That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. R. S. Hudson.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 9.—(Power of Minister to buy requisitioned land.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 9, leave out "value which it would have had at the date of the notice to treat," and insert:
price which a willing seller would, at the date of the notice to treat, have been likely to obtain in the open market for the land.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is in effect a drafting Amendment to bring out more clearly the intention as to the basis of compensation where land is acquired. In effect, it makes the basis of compensation when we acquire land the same as the basis when we resell land.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 37, after "subject," insert "or might be made subject."

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege, and the House can, of course, waive their Privilege if they like. I will have a record made of this in the Journals of the House.

Mr. Hudson: This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that no common lands can be acquired under the provisions of this Clause. During the early Debates the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) expressed some doubt whether the original wording carried out this intention. The Amendment brings the wording into conformity with previous legislation, and it is understood that the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society agree that the Clause as amended will carry out the intention of excluding all common lands.

Mr. Creech Jones: This is a technical legal point, and I would like to be assured that the Amendment does completely cover all the common lands which I mentioned in a previous Debate.

Mr. Hudson: I understand that the Society, which makes it its business to look after common lands and to prevent any encroachment on the rights to them, agrees that this Amendment does the trick.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Disposal of land acquired under the last preceding section.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 39, after "price" insert:
as may be specified in the offer or, if the person to whom the offer is made so elects in accepting the offer, at such price.

Mr. Hudson: This is the first of two drafting Amendments to make it clear that the period of three months mentioned in Sub-section (4) of the Clause shall be a period during which negotiations as to the price at which the land is to be offered for repurchase may be discussed between the two parties. During the Committee stage the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Pym) and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) raised the question whether the offer would be tied to a price or whether the price would be subject to negotiation. The Amendment makes it clear that the price will be named when the offer is made and that it will be open to the person to whom the offer is made to accept it at that price or to negotiate an amended price within three months, or, failing agreement and in the knowledge of the price asked by the Minister, to accept the offer to repurchase subject to arbitration as to the price.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment, in page 9, line 2, agreed to.

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939.

FISH SALES (CHARGES) ORDER, 1941.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I beg to move,
That the Fish Sales (Charges) Order, 1941, dated 25th September, 1941, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency


Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 30th September, be approved.
When price control was introduced for fish some time ago it became necessary that the transport charges should be equalised, for the good reason that when this commodity was in short supply, and the margins fixed, there was a tendency for it to be consumed in areas near the ports of landing. We were anxious to get distribution, although the commodity might be in short supply, as far as possible throughout the country. We, therefore, decided as a temporary measure that the Ministry would pay all transport charges on fish in order to achieve this object so that no extra benefit would accrue to any coastal wholesaler if he decided to sell fish within the narrow area of a port. During the first three months of the Order the transport charges were paid from public funds, and they in fact represented a subsidy to the industry of something like £2,000,000 a year. This new Order puts the charge upon the industry itself. Article 2 of the Order lays down that the charge of 6d. per stone shall be paid on all first hand sales of fish landed. The money will be paid into the Ministry of Food Fish Charges Account. This charge of 6d. per stone is collected from those who sell the fish at first hand, that is, in the majority of cases, the owners of trawlers and fishermen who own boats. There seems to be some misunderstanding about the effect of this charge upon the fishermen. In some quarters it has been assumed that the 6d. will be a deduction from the price which fishermen will get for what they catch. The fact of the matter is that the prices which the Ministry of Food agreed to pay for various categories of fish had 6d. added to the price in order that when the levy was collected it did not mean a reduction of 6d. in the price. To take an example, the price of round fish is 7s. per stone, but had it not been for the sixpenny levy it would have been 6s. 6d.
Hon. Members will know that an amending Order has lately been made, the effect of which is to take out of the Order under discussion Articles 3 and 5. The House would probably like to have some explanation of this change. The previous Order lays down the procedure to be followed in the paying of the crews. Many hon. Members are no doubt aware of the system by which hands are paid. They

are paid in relation to the value of the catch, and therefore we decided that when the maximum prices were obtained for fish, the owner should be required to settle with the fishermen on a higher basis than the maximum prices. It was estimated that this arrangement would cost the British owners something like 8d. a stone on all fish caught, and it was decided accordingly to make a charge on foreign owners at the same rate in order that our own people should not be at a disadvantage. Very strong protests were received on this score from practically all the foreign owners who are landing fish in this country to-day. We were most anxious, naturally, in view of the fact that there is such a shortage of supply, to do nothing that would, in any way, reduce the already small supply coming into the country. Accordingly we have decided to remove this provision from the Order, and that explains the deletion of Article 3.
Article 5, which is also to be deleted under the amending Order, lays down that the 6d. which is added to the price of the fish should not be deducted by the owners when they are making their settlements with the men. It is not surprising that strong exception should be taken to this by the owners. We have been in consultation with them since they have made their protest, and we have agreed to delete Article 5. The owners have, however, agreed to pay this levy until 31st December next and not to charge it, in settling with their crews, and we, on our part, have agreed to introduce a new Maximum Prices Order as from about 31st December next, and we shall arrange that the levy shall then be collected from the coastal merchants rather than from the owners.

Mr. Garro Jones: My right hon. and gallant Friend says that he has been in consultation with the owners and has conceded their point. May I ask him whether he is aware that there is considerable feeling on this matter among the fishermen themselves and whether he has been in consultation with them?

Major Lloyd George: I do not think my hon. Friend quite appreciates what has happened. There is no change whatever in the position. What I have said is that the 6d. was added to the price obtained in order that the levy should not be inflicted upon the members of the crews, because


the settlement in the normal case, as my hon. Friend knows, is based on the value of the catch. The value of the catch here is estimated plus the levy, and settlements have been made hitherto on the value of the catch plus the 6d. This, of course, is not the real value, but the owners have agreed to continue that practice until 31st December, when the new Maximum Prices Order will be introduced. Therefore, up to 31st December the position will be exactly as it was before, under Article 10 of the Maximum Prices Order, which lays down the system by which this payment is made. The principle will not be departed from in any agreement which the owners make with the men, and I think my hon. Friend can rest assured that there will be no hardship involved in this case. As a matter of fact we are very much alive to the necessity of compensating fully the men who take the risks which are taken by the fishermen to-day.

Mr. Garro Jones: I appreciate all the points which my right hon. and gallant Friend has put, and I was not seeking to go into the merits of the question. But he has consulted the trawler-owners on a point affecting the system of settling with the men, and I would like to know whether he has also consulted with the men's representatives and whether they consider that what is being done is just.

Major Lloyd George: I am sorry, but my hon. Friend when he speaks of being just, evidently has not yet appreciated what I am trying to get at. At the present moment when the maximum price is obtained—and in one port which I know very well, the maximum price is obtained in 90 per cent, of the cases—the trawler owner settles with his crew on prices which, in some cases, are shillings above the price that he receives. Take the case of haddock, for instance. The price, I think, is 7s., but the settlement is on the basis of 9s. The reason for that is that my Noble Friend decided that while prices in June were far too high, it was most desirable that they should not be brought down at the expense of the people who were catching the fish. Therefore, that provision was put in, and at the present time, in most cases in which the maximum prices are reached, the settlement is made on a higher price than the actual price received. This 6d. levy is not received by the owners at all. The owner collects the

levy, but the proceeds are paid to us—to our Fish Charges Account. While negotiations will be taking place between the men and the owners regarding the method of settlement, the owners have agreed, in consultation with us, that the principle laid down in the Maximum Prices Order will not be departed from up to 31st December, and they propose to continue paying on the basis of the price plus 6d. That is the position.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Are we to understand that on 31st December next the system by which inshore fishermen pay the levy will be altered and that the 6d. levy thereafter will be paid by the port wholesaler?

Major Lloyd George: By the coastal merchants. With these two Articles deleted, the House will observe that the main purpose of the Order is to authorise the imposition of this 6d. levy. There is no doubt whatever that it is important that we should have some means by which to equalise the cost of transport. One of the greatest difficulties has been that of getting fair distribution. That is quite apart from the shortage, though it is partly due to shortage. Naturally, as I have said, there was an inducement to the wholesale merchant at the coast to deliver his fish to places as near as possible to where it was landed, in order to make as much profit as possible. Then we introduced this system of equalising transport charges, and from inquiries I have made and from my own experience, it has worked very satisfactorily, and I am certain that the House will wish that the system should continue.
The sole purpose of this Order is to empower us to collect this levy for the purpose of equalising charges. Points with regard to the case of the inshore fishermen have been put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). I have met my hon. Friend, and also representatives of some of the inshore fishermen, and I can say this to him that the levy has nothing to do with the price obtained for the fish. If the price previously was 10s., it will now be 10s. 6d.; a levy of 6d. will be added. But it will have nothing to do with the price the fishermen get for what they catch. I have made inquiries into the position as it affects certain inshore fishermen, and, as I promised my hon. Friend, I am making further investiga-


tions. We shall do everything we can to assist the fishing industry, because we have no desire that anybody should lose by helping the nation in this time of war.

Mr. Riley: In connection with this levy of 6d., may I ask whether there will be any further levy upon the delivery of fish by non-British trawlers? It has been the case, I think, that such fish delivered at British ports was subject to a levy of an extra 8d per stone. Has that been abolished?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Article 3 of the amending Order which we present to the House deletes it.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The whole fishing community will, I think, be grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend for the concession which he has announced. Speaking for myself, as one who has taken some little part in pressing for this and other changes in the Order, I want to thank him for what he has done and for the courtesy he has shown in considering the case of the various sections of the trade which has been presented to him within the last week or two. What my right hon. and gallant Friend has said in effect to-day, although not all hon. Members may have observed it, is that this scheme of a levy upon fishermen is damned, and that by the end of December it will be dead as well; and I feel that he is entitled to claim that the sentence he has passed upon it is the wisest judgment he has ever passed upon a Departmental Measure. If he will go further and extend the same sentence to other parts of the Orders affecting fish prices and allocations, he may well go down to history as being almost the only Minister who in the last 25 years has shown common sense and justice in dealing with this very difficult, very complicated but nevertheless vital national industry. But I feel that my right hon. and gallant Friend really must carry his investigations a good deal further than he has suggested that he proposes to do. There is more in this amending Order than would appear from the gentle, almost dulcet, tones in which he has described it. There is much still that is wrong with this Order and the related Orders dealing with prices. Already much evil has been done by this particular Order, is being done and will continue to be done until radical changes are made in it and in its related

Regulations affecting the catching, selling and distribution of fish.
In considering these evils, let me remind the House that this levy continues. It has been in operation now for six weeks, and it is to continue until the end of the present year, and that is a very serious thing for men whom I and some of my hon. Friends here represent. The fact that this levy has been in operation has given us practical evidence, as opposed to theory, as to its effects. First, this is a new Order. This method of a levy upon fishermen landing their fish at the quayside introduces an entirely novel method into a very old industry, a method of dealing with transport charges which runs counter to every rule and custom of the fishing trade as established over the last 500 years. There is no more conservative class in the country than fishermen. They live upon tradition, their every action is based upon the accepted customs and practices of their fathers. That is one reason, if there: were no other reason, why they ought to have been consulted at an early stage before this new measure was introduced at all.
More than that, the Order enforces upon tens of thousands of fishermen a heavy additional financial charge which many of them can ill afford to bear and for which no Parliamentary authority has existed until to-day. I know that my right hon. and gallant Friend says that the price levels laid down in the Maximum Prices Order take account of this levy of 6d., but I would point out that it is only the maximum prices which so provide. In a great many cases maximum prices are not reached. He says that in 90 per cent, of the cases in his own constituency maximum prices are obtained, but that is not my experience, nor is it the experience of my hon. Friend who represents the other side of the Firth of Forth, or those who speak for the Forfarshire fishermen. It is not the experience of the deputation of fishermen which met Scottish Members a few days ago. Our experience is that frequently, at every port, maximum prices are not reached. One of the men who met us in Edinburgh gave us figures to prove that on one particular day—I think it was a day or two before he came to the meeting—the maximum prices were not reached, and that when he had added the levy to his costs the result of the voyage was actually a net loss to him


and his colleagues in his boat. Therefore, it is no use my right hon. and gallant Friend saying that this levy is accounted for in the price. On the contrary, it is a direct, new and onerous charge upon the fishermen, and that is one of the reasons why I am objecting to it. I gather from what was said by the deputation of fishermen from East Yorkshire that they have experienced much the same thing.
I repeat that this is a charge which until to-day has had no Parliamentary authority. I suppose that the Treasury can introduce an Order of this kind and put it into effect, but I feel I have the support of other hon. Members in saying that such an Order, which introduces novel practices, upsets a whole industry and imposes new burdens upon fishermen at a time when they are ill able to carry them, should not be brought into operation without immediate consultation with Parliament, indeed, I would say, without prior authority from Parliament. Why has there been this long interval between the date when this Order was put into effect and the levy was imposed upon fishermen and the date when Parliament is invited to authorise the Order? There were probably technical reasons, but I cannot help feeling that serious injustice has been done to the men. Many hundreds of pounds have been paid already by inshore fishermen on the East Coast of Scotland, and many more may be paid before the scheme is changed. The scheme, I feel, has been a great injustice to fishermen and reflects very seriously upon my right hon Friend and his Department. There ought not to have been so long a delay before the scheme was presented to the House.

Mr. Robertson: Can my hon. Friend give the House any authentic figures showing that loss has been sustained by the fishermen since the war broke out?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is not following the point. I am not talking about that aspect of the subject, but about this levy. The levy was imposed only six weeks ago and involves a payment of 6d. on every stone of fish landed. [Interruption.] I certainly say that it will involve thousands of pounds being charged to fishermen throughout the country. If the fishermen in my hon. Friend's con-

stituency are not objecting as mine are,' I am very surprised to hear it. Why was there no proper consultation before this burdensome levy was introduced? It is very unusual for the Government not to consult the trade concerned. A few months ago a White Paper was, issued from the Treasury dealing with stabilisation and prices. What did the Government do about it? Before the paper was drafted it was presented to the Trades Union Congress and the employers' federation. There were amendments and counter-amendments, circulation and re-circulation, before it reached this House. Even then so timorous were the Government about it that we were prevented from so much as discussing the matter. But when it is a case of the humble, unorganised and unsupported fishermen the Government do not deign to consult them at all.

Major Lloyd George: I cannot allow the statement to go forth that no consultation took place, because a very great deal of consultation has taken place. We took all possible steps to consult whomsoever we could. My hon. Friend knows as well as anybody does that organisations of inshore fishermen and other bodies were consulted.

Mr. Stewart: I invite my right hon. and gallant Friend and the House to consider the facts, and I include not only the inshore fishermen in my statement but the trade, the bigger trade, and the Fish Industry Joint Council, which stands for the whole trade. I say that on this matter of the levy the Fish Industry Joint Council, which is the only body competent to speak for the trade, was not consulted until last Wednesday. There was no consultation with any body on the question of the levy until last Wednesday. How did it come about that there was consultation? Was it on the suggestion of the Ministry? No, but on the last-minute desperate appeal of the trade itself. It is wrong that this should be so. When the deputation was received by the Ministry the case that it put in the simple terms of practical men was so overwhelming and obvious that the Ministry accepted it at once. The deputation said that the levy as proposed was unworkable, inefficient and wasteful and that there was another, easier and more efficient way of achieving the same result. These views were immediately accepted by the Minister, who issued his


amending order within 48 hours of hearing that deputation. How much time and energy as well as money might have been saved if that consultation had taken place five weeks or more before the scheme was ever set on foot, instead of only five days before this Debate and five weeks after the scheme has been in operation.

Major Lloyd George: The Fish Industry Joint Council was not in existence when this was started. As soon as it was in existence we consulted it.

Mr. Stewart: That may well be, but my statement is that no part of the fishing industry was consulted on this matter of the levy until last week. My right hon. and gallant Friend has shown himself a generous Minister. He received the deputation from East Yorkshire and was exceedingly kind and sympathetic. I am not blaming him, personally, but I am saying that there is something wrong in a Ministry which introduces and puts into effect a levy of this kind without consultation with the trade concerned.
The levy now stands, and I regard it as unjust and impracticable. It remains until December. This is a matter of the greatest possible importance to hundreds of men whom I and other hon. Members represent. We have all been in close contact with our constituents, and we know how seriously our constituents feel on this matter. I invite the House and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider the facts of the levy in terms of the hard cash burden to the humble fishermen. The effect of the levy has been to bring down the maximum price to the fishermen. I will speak in specific terms. The maximum price to the fishermen for cod, haddock and that wide range of fish which is probably the most popular of all upon the British table, to 5d. per lb. In the East of Scotland, the average crew ranges from about five to six men. The men I represent are therefore getting about 1d. per lb. for their cod as a result of the price schedule and the levy. Compare this with the 1s. or 1s. 6d. per lb. paid for the same fish by the housewife, it may be in the same village where the fish is landed.
Is it to be wondered at that those whom I represent complain bitterly about the present Order? In the case of haddock the maximum price is brought down to less than 25 per cent, over the pre-war price—I am quoting the

Ministry's own figures. The price paid for haddock to fishermen is only 25 per cent, higher than it was in 1938, and yet the price of everything which the fishermen need to catch the fish has gone up, sometimes by four times. These are practical results which lead me to describe the levy as injurious and wholly unjustifiable in its effect upon the fishermen.
Let me now examine the effect of the levy upon the distribution of fish. My right hon. and gallant Friend said that the purpose of the scheme was to effect a more even and a fairer distribution of fish in the country. Is the present system of imposing the levy, which is now in operation and which will continue until December, a good system? It is an untried system. Whereas the traditional system, by which the wholesaler not only distributed the fish but paid for its distribution, did secure economy of distribution and economy in the weight of fish actually sent on railway trains, under the new method, by which the Ministry becomes responsible for all transport charges and every vestige of responsibility for transport is taken off the shoulders of the wholesaler, the merchant does not care a rap what fish he sends away, nor how he sends it. What matters it to him if cod, which is normally dispatched with the head removed to save weight, is sent with the heads on from the East Coast to the Midlands, and the weight thereby increased; what matters it if the cost is much higher than it need be; what matters it if it goes to the wrong places? Who cares? The Government pay. It is one of those innumerable cases, of which I am afraid we have all come across examples since the war started, of the waste and inefficiency of State control and Socialism. It is a typical example which I hope will be borne in the minds of the whole country. I say it is a wasteful system, because it is extravagant with the use of much-needed transport, and for that reason it ought to be ended. My right hon. and gallant Friend and his Ministry and officials have admitted the evils of the system, and he has said that it will be altered in December.

Major Lloyd George: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I simply stated that after December the machinery of collection would be the merchants' instead of the owners' responsibility.

Mr. Stewart: I do not suppose a Government Department would ever change a system unless they were persuaded that it was a mighty bad one. It is true. This is a thoroughly bad system, and if the levy upon the catch is to be paid, it ought to be paid by the wholesaler—the merchant—the man who does the distribution, and put upon him in such a way that he becomes responsible for seeing that an economic method is used in the distribution of fish. If the present system is bad, as I think it is, demonstrably, why should it be continued until the end of December? If it is bad, it ought to be stopped now. My right hon. and gallant Friend may say that the Treasury need recompense for the money that they have paid out for transport, but it was only in September last that this levy was imposed upon fishermen. Throughout 24 months of war it had not been found necessary to impose this bad and uneconomic system; will waiting another two months until a better one has been invented ruin the British Treasury? Of course it will not. I ask the House to insist that the whole Order be withdrawn. There is nothing in it now but Clause 2. If this levy has to be abandoned, let us abandon it at once and be done with it. I feel that my right hon. and gallant Friend will be taking the only sensible course if he agrees to that course. If he does not, I shall have to oppose the Order and will gladly divide the House when the time comes. My right hon. and gallant Friend has been most willing to hear the case, and I hope he will be able to make some sort of statement which will make that course unnecessary.
I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will be able to develop a little further the few remarks that he made on the general question of prices. The second paragraph of this Order reads: —
And whereas the Fish (Maximum Prices) (No. 2) Order, 1941, made by the Ministry of Food under Regulation 55 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, contains a scheme of control of fish:
And whereas it is desired to provide for imposing and recovering, in connection with that scheme, the charges hereinafter specified:
That being so, you cannot consider the present Order without also considering the prices Order. I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will develop a little further the very welcome assurance he gave that he was examining this question of prices. I know that he has sent out investigators and that one of them is

going to Scotland to-morrow; I thank him for that, and we shall all gladly welcome his representative, but I hope that the reports of these investigators will be studied with the maximum speed in the Ministry of Food, because my right hon. and gallant Friend must understand that the present prices are not good enough. I must say I find it very difficult to understand why he and his noble Friend should choose the beginning of the winter to impose a fairly heavy cut in the prices to be paid for fish. Winter is the season when the fisherman's life becomes even more hazardous, when the catch is almost automatically smaller, but when the demand for good fresh food such as the inshore fishermen can provide is greater than at any other time. Yet it is now that prices are to be reduced still further. There have been some very remarkable cases, and again I will be quite specific. In June my right hon. and gallant Friend had already cut prices paid to fishermen. In the East of Scotland, for example, the effect of that cut in June was to reduce the prices paid for cod by no less than one-third. That was a pretty drastic cut, from 10s. to 7s. a stone. Would he not have been wiser—

Mr. Speaker: The only point the hon. Member can raise on this Motion is that the 6d. charge under this Order would be too high. He cannot deal with prices.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful for the correction. What I am trying to point out is that a situation was created previously into which it is now sought to introduce this further imposition of a 6d. levy, and in order to show the harmful effects of that levy I am trying to indicate what was the prior situation. I have only one other figure to quote, and I will undertake not to stray beyond the Rules of Order. I was saying that in June a cut of one-third was made, and in September a further cut of one-quarter was added, the result being that for the same cod the fishermen now receives only 5s. 7d. As I have said earlier in my remarks, everything the fisherman needs to catch cod has increased in price. Full details have been given to us; I have submitted them to my right hon. and gallant Friend, and he is now making inquiries throughout the coast to check up on that point. I can give him any amount of details. A line which used to cost £1 us. ready to put into the


water now costs £4 10s. Bait—mussels and whelks—all the materials used by fishermen have multiplied in price. I estimate, quite conservatively, that the cost of fishing has increased by at least 70 per cent. over the 1938 level, yet the prices being paid for certain fish are only 25 per cent. higher than pre-war prices. I invite my right hon. and gallant Friend to tell us a little more about the assurance he gave that the problem of prices which lies at the back of this Order shall have his most immediate and sympathetic consideration.
I am sorry to have kept the House so long, but this is a very important matter for us. It is not the first time that I have pleaded the cause of the fishermen in this Assembly. Their life is a very hard one even in normal times. The returns are comparatively poor. At the present time they face not only the hazards of the weather and wind and winter, but in the Firth of Forth and all round the East Coast they are moving among mines and bombs. Every moment is one of peril and danger to life and limb. My right hon. and gallant Friend has the future of these men in his keeping. He has a very serious responsibility. I have told him, I think I have proved to him, that this present scheme does a very real injustice. I beg hon. members therefore to show the greatest possible expedition and sympathy in removing this measure and bringing us something more worth while in its place.

Mr. Beeehman (St. Ives): I was very glad to hear from my right hon. and gallant Friend that he had found it possible to reconsider favourably some of the pleas made to him in respect of this Order. I should like to acknowledge that when I first, some two months ago, expressed some uncertainty to him about how this Order might work out, he has treated me, and those other hon. Members interested in this matter, with the utmost courtesy, and has been at pains to explain to us the purpose of this Order and the modifications which, from time to time, he has had in mind. I was glad that my right hon. and gallant Friend indicated that he recognised the special position of the inshore fishing industry. He has rightly said that it is not only a part of the fishing industry with very special characteristics, but that it varies from district to district. I do hope that when my right

hon. and gallant Friend sends his investigators abroad he will not forget to take into consideration the inshore fishing industry in the West Country. It is not only a matter of very great concern to the West Country, but has afforded magnificent aid in the national effort itself.
I feel that this problem has come about very largely because the Treasury, which, after all, is primarily responsible for this Order, has had its mind more directed to the actual machinery of collection with which it is concerned than to the texture of the industry from which it has to collect the levy. I quite understand that the Treasury is concerned to see that the levies are collected as easily as possible, but I think it ought to have been apparent at the start that it would not be felt to be reasonable that the levy should be collected at the producing end only. Everybody who has anything to do with fishermen knows that, while they are rightly quick to resent injustice, there is no body of people more reasonable in acquiescing in proposals when they are explained and when they are felt and found to be just. In this case it was rightly felt that to impose a levy on those who actually catch the fish, in all weathers and in the face of great danger, as has been stated, could hardly be called equitable.
It has been a most remarkable thing to find that the fishermen and, indeed, the fish merchants have, so far as my experience goes in the West Country, supported the fish control in a remarkably heartening way. The fish control is not only a scheme which has helped us considerably to keep prices reasonable during the course of the war, but, from one's observation of the way in which it is being supported by the fishermen themselves, it may well be that this system holds out very encouraging possibilities for the organisation of the industry after the war. Therefore, when one does find that the fishermen arc making some objection, one knows that, from the reasonable way in which they have supported the control so far, it is a matter which deserves consideration. My right hon. and gallant Friend has told the House that this is merely a matter of collection. I have assumed that to be so in the course of my brief observations. He has told us that the 6d. is allowed for in the price. I hope that I have understood this matter aright, because I think it is a matter of great moment.
Originally we had a draft Order fixing maximum prices, and in the subsequent Order prices were stepped up 6d. because it is said this levy was in view. It does not, of course, answer the point to say that it happens that, in the subsequent Order, the prices were stepped up. It only explains what has been done if we can assume that when the Order was finally made, and the price stepped up 6d. it was done with the knowledge that this levy was about to come into force. Is that the position? I am grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend for indicating assent. The only criticism I have to make on this aspect of the question is that if that 6d. was put on at that time because it was to be taken off in the levy, it should have been explained to the trade and to the fishermen at the time. I do not believe that this controversy would have arisen, certainly it would not have arisen with the acuteness with which it appears to have arisen in certain parts of the coast, if it had been explained at the time that this extra 6d. was only being put on in order to be taken off again in this way. I will conclude by observing that we are to have this change on 31st December. I should have preferred to have seen the levy spread right over the industry. I suppose it ought to have been collected equally, for instance through fried fish shops as well as through other sections of the industry. But I will say that I am quite sure that, in view of my right hon. and gallant Friend's assurance that he is going to consider the situation, especially so far as it affects the inshore industry, the fishermen will meet the matter reasonably and will assume that their interests are to be considered. If the matter does not turn out as we now hope, it may be necessary to raise it again in this House.

Mr. Parker: I hope the Minister will consider not only the views of fishermen but the views of the general public. My constituency is a working-class and lower middle class constituency on the outskirts of London. The views of my constituents are very different indeed from those of the constituents of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart). We have had hardly any fish for weeks, and what there has been has been sold at very high prices. The great demand in my constituency is that we should have more fish, and at more reasonable prices. I cannot agree with

the hon. Member for East Fife in criticising the Minister's views that there should be some attempt at equalisation of the cost of distribution. It may be a novel thing in the fish industry, but it is far from novel in many other industries. In the meat and wheat import trades schemes have been in operation for years, under which the costs of distribution are levelled throughout the country. I do not see why a similar scheme should not operate in the fish trade, or why the Government should be expected to subsidise it. But if one agrees with the Ministry so far, one does not necessarily agree with the way they have approached the whole question of trying to equalise distribution. The hon. Member for East Fife spoke of a Socialist system having been introduced by the Ministry. I, personally, see nothing Socialistic about it at all. It seems to me the worst kind of State control mixed up with an arrangement for the continuance of the profiteering which has been going on in the industry since the beginning of the war. There is nothing Socialistic about a bastard scheme of that kind, combining a certain amount of Government intervention but with private traders continuing to operate the industry. Our quarrel from this side with the Government is that they have not been courageous enough in dealing with the industry. The fish trade should be dealt with as the meat trade already has been. Why should not the Ministry requisition all the trawlers, do the fishing themselves, and control the trade right through? I noted that quite recently the Minister, in replying to various attacks upon the Ministry, pointed out that during the past year the Ministry had actually held three trawlers and had fished with them themselves, and that during that perod they made a clear profit of £250,000, the total landings from the three trawlers being 178,000 kits. In the same period, the trawlers in private hands caught 1,250,000 kits, and made a profit which the Minister estimated at £1,750,000.

Major Lloyd George: They were not trawlers; they were carriers.

Mr. Parker: I took this statement from the "Evening Standard" If they have misreported the Minister, I apologise. When many trawlers have already been requisitioned for Admiralty purposes, it is only fair that the others should be requisitioned and used also for national pur-


poses. If the Ministry are prepared to do that, I am certain they will have effective control of the fish trade, from the point of catch to the point of sale. The fish trade before the war was top-heavy and over-burdened with wholesalers and agents. In the inter-war years the number of merchants dealing with the fish in Grimsby and many other ports increased, although the actual quantity of fish handled decreased. Just before the war, the industry, according to the White Fish Commission, had far too many people handling the fish. When the war came, and the quantity of fish handled decreased, this same number of people continued to try to make a living, and prices consequently went up amazingly, until the Government had to fix prices.
I hope this Order will be only the beginning of an attempt to deal with the fish industry. It has successfully fought the Ministry for many months. On 1st September, the Ministry were going to take it over and make drastic alterations. For various reasons, they did not do so. They finally brought in this Order instead. I hope that the Ministry will not go back on their original intention to make drastic alterations in the industry, but that they will take it over, rationalise it, get rid of unnecessary middle-men, employ as agents the most suitable men in the industry, and distribute fish as fairly as possible, seeing that the working-class population get a fair share. I hope that they will be prepared to requisition trawlers and rationalise the industry right through, and not be frightened by the influence of the fish trade in mobilising opinion against them. I hope that the Minister will be courageous, and that he will stand by his guns and carry through the more extensive scheme which he originally talked about. I hope that this is only the beginning of changes in the industry.

Major Braithwaite: I do not find anything to quarrel with in the statement of the Minister. I think it has clarified a position which was exercising the minds of many fishermen, and which was misleading to general public opinion. There has been no official notification until to-day that the 6d. levy was not on the real price for which the fish were being sold at the port. I am obliged to my right hon. and gallant Friend for his kindness and courtesy in receiving a de-

putation which came from East Yorkshire, consisting of fishermen from that area with some of my Parliamentary colleagues. I think the Minister could not have helped being impressed by the sincerity of those men, who came, at their own expense, to describe to him the conditions which they were experiencing as inshore fishermen. They were able to show that they were getting a very poor living. I know that these Orders are not strictly relevant to that particular side of our fishing industry, but the position in regard to the 6d. levy was clearly not understood by the fishermen when they came on that deputation. I agree with the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) that this system of levying production is a bad system on which to attempt to establish any measure of confidence. If my right hon. and gallant Friend had not been at the Ministry of Food, but had tried this game at the Ministry of Mines, he would have heard a great deal about it in this House long before now.
I can see, when it is explained, that it is obviously a reasonable method of raising money for carrying out a particular duty, but if the levy is to be applied to transportation, then it should be clearly laid down so that everybody understands it, and it should be understood by all these people who transport goods to a definite market.
I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that our fishermen are carrying out a difficult and dangerous duty in these times, and I hope that there will be an extension of the fishing industry, because it is a great thing for the life of our country that we should have an adequate supply of really fresh fish and not the stuff that is being packed away on ice or in refrigerators for months. If he makes conditions reasonable for these people, they are prepared to take all the risks and to go out into the dangerous waters round our coasts and to do their best to bring in a proper catch for our people. I am glad to learn that by the 31st December the whole principle of the levy is to be revised and a new system adopted. I only hope that he will make it clear to the general public. There have been some complaints from the other side today that fish is too dear in some places. I hope that the general public will know exactly the net price to our fishermen at


the ports and then criticisms will not arise. From what I have seen and the examinations I have made of the balance sheets of boats fishing from my own and adjacent constituencies during the last three months, these do not make good reading at all and have shown, in many cases, severe losses to our fishermen.
I want to close by thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for his courtesy and the way in which he received that deputation of fishermen last week and by asking that he will make an announcement on the result of his investigations as soon as possible, so that our people can get back to work and put their backs into doing everything possible to make the maximum effort in war-time.

Mr. de Rothschild: The Order which is before the House to-day has been the subject of much comment in the Press and of much interest to the consumer at large in these Islands, but before I discuss it I would like to extend my congratulations to my right hon. and gallant Friend for the manner in which he and his Department have been handling the slippery, perishable foodstuff in which we are at present interested. The fishing industry, as is well known, is an industry of many varied branches, and these interests are very little agreed. That is why we have heard so many divergent views to-day. There is no doubt that this industry got thoroughly out of hand at the beginning of the war, yet I commend my right hon. and gallant Friend because he has won the cooperation of the whole industry and has worked with it and produced these very serious and interesting measures for the control of the home market. He has produced a scheme of price control which up to the present has been adhered to loyally and carefully worked out by the different branches of the trade, and until the present shortage appeared there was little or no complain. Some evidences of a Black Market have lately appeared, but I believe the position is being very carefully watched by the officers of the Ministry.
Everybody appears to approve the scheme of the Minister, and there have been very minor complaints. In reference to the prices, which have been touched upon by some of the Members

who have spoken in this Debate, there has been very little comment, except on the subject of the price of hake especially in comparison with the price of dogfish. Hake, as my right hon. and gallant Friend no doubt knows, is a very delightful and much appreciated fish, whereas the dogfish is one which takes its name, I imagine, from the pye-dog in the East, which is not as dainty as the lap-dog we know in this part of the world. So it is not surprising that the housewives have all joined in the "Hymn of Hake." There are other minor details which have been thrown at the head of my right hon. and gallant Friend, such as the disappearance of some of the little men from the market, but these are difficulties with which the Ministry is very well able to cope.
I would also like to congratulate the Minister upon his allocation committees, which have functioned so well and which will help him in the distribution of fish throughout the country. As regards the consumers, there have been good arrangements made to get to them the fish that reaches these coasts, and we have heard the scheme outlined to-day. But in spite of these very carefully-thought-out measures, of the cost of inland transport being paid out of the central fund under the auspices of the Ministry, and of the fact that everybody has his task assigned to him, yet there is very little fish to buy and very little fish to be distributed. There is little work for the trade, so that offices and fish shops are often closed at midday. There is so little fish that an empty fishmonger's shop with bare slabs is a common sight in any shopping district at the present time. No wonder people are asking the reason for this shortage and there have been articles in the papers. The consuming public is concerned and many of the statements that have been made are no doubt somewhat wide of the truth. Perhaps we may hear more from the Minister when he makes his concluding speech. We know, that to-day the fisherman, as we have heard, is faced with greater difficulties and dangers than he ever has been and that he meets them with his usual courage. But the view is constantly being reiterated in these articles in the Press that supplies of fish could be greatly increased from. Icelandic resources if certain restrictions now in force were removed. The levy which is now before this House brings up this very important


question, because it is closely connected with certain aspects of the Icelandic Agreement. The terms of this Agreement are shrouded in Icelandic fog. In normal times, no doubt, a Treaty of this kind would have been discussed on the Floor of the House, but no Member to-day would wish to press for information which might in any way be prejudicial to the national interest. But with regard to this Treaty, although it has not been placed on the Table, it has been seen apparently by various individuals and interests. Allegations have been made about it in the Press, and they give an impression that may well be quite incorrect.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Colonel Clifton Brown): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot see where the Icelandic Treaty comes in on the Order we arc discussing now.

Mr. de Rothschild: It comes in inasmuch as the Treaty has been made between this country and Iceland for the importation of the catch of Icelandic fish. This is brought to the country by the Government. Besides this, there is a large number of boats which ply between this country and Iceland, and on the catches made by these fishermen a 6d. levy must be paid. That is why I consider the Icelandic Treaty is closely bound up with the levy we are discussing at present. It is obvious that this Treaty can only be a success if the Icelandic Government and people are satisfied with it. But there is little fish coming into this country. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has shown great tact in dealing with the inland fish, and I am sure he can be relied upon to show equal tact in dealing with this wider question of foreign policy with the Icelandic Government, which will influence to a degree the 6d. levy which is put on the trade.
I wish to refer to the scarcity of fishing boats which arc allowed to trade between Iceland and this country. Besides the boats which are chartered by the Ministry and which are handed over to one concessionaire there are 30 trawlers, 30 Iceland carriers, and 30 Faroe Island boats —90 boats in all—licensed to fish in Iceland and bring that fish to this country. It is alleged that there is a large number of boats which could be used but which are lying idle and which could bring fish to this country on which the 6d. levy could and should be

paid. The men who man these boats are prepared to take all risks and face all dangers in order to bring fish to this country and satisfy the consumer. One trawler owner went so far as to say that 128 such boats were laid up. If 128 more boats brought fish from Iceland, it would mean a great deal to the consumers of this country and would bring more sixpences into the coffers of the Ministry. The Icelandic people claim that certain fishing grounds are closed to their own fishermen. What is the result? Boats reach this country with only half cargoes and, therefore, pay many pounds less levy to the Treasury and to the Ministry. I wonder whether that point is met by this Treaty. If not, is there a compensatory provision which may help the right hon. and gallant Gentleman from another point of view? There is another class of boat which it is urged could be used. These are the boats which make regular journeys to Iceland carrying exports from this country. When empty they could bring back catches of fish on which the Ministry could collect a levy, whereas I understand they return in ballast.
There are claims that more fish could be landed in this country if loading arrangements in the Iceland ports were better and if there was more than one organisation employed to do this work. Although many are available and anxious to share in it, only one, as far as I can make out, is being employed. This leads to delay and lack of cargoes coming into this country. I wonder if that is why so much fish is bad on arrival and why on so much fish the 6d. levy is not being paid. There was a recent newspaper article saying that 25,000 stones of fish had been condemned in three weeks and that in addition much fish was not consumed as it was of doubtful quality. Of course, by that you get a loss to the consumer and to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. No doubt such allegations are being carefully investigated, since this is a matter which seriously affects the health of the nation and also the administration of the fishing industry. Men should not brave the hazards of the sea to bring these worthless cargoes to our shores, nor should we be deprived of the fish which comes here. No doubt this is only part of the story, and the truth will appear shortly.
I wonder whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is satisfied with the amount of fish he is getting or the amount of levy which is being paid into the account of the Ministry. Certainly he is getting, a certain amount of salt cod which the Ministry advertises as though it was succulent lamprey. Of course, the consumer would rather have plaice or turbot, which cannot be stored in Iceland ports for salting while waiting for Government boats to bring it here, yet we hear that prime fish is being thrown back into Iceland waters because Government transports are not available to bring it. These stories are reminiscent of former times. They remind one of the days when corn was burnt for fuel while millions were inadequately fed. So long as we get fish at a reasonable price it does not matter much by what means it comes to us. As regards profit, the Minister is seeing to it that there are no excessive profits to be made now. Let us keep our minds on the supplies of fish; let us not be diverted by the red herring of excessive profits which is being drawn across the empty slabs of the fishmongers' shops. Undoubtedly, excessive profits have been made, and steps are being taken to deal with that at the present time. If it is felt that these profits are still excessive, fish prices can be cut further. They can be fixed in a just and fair manner. When the Government concluded the agreement, apparently they intended to use the profits to defray the costs of inland transport. Unfortunately, this attempt at State trading does not appear to have been the success it was intended to be, and the levy of 6d. is to be imposed.
I take it that all sections of the industry in this country will now be satisfied with the promises that have been made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I hope that he will also be able to give equal satisfaction to those who are interested in the Icelandic question. If the Government seriously want these sixpences, no matter from what source they come, they must encourage the boats to bring fish to our ports. Unless more boats arrive, we shall have little fish and few sixpences. Perhaps a less restrictive policy would be in the interests of everybody, the fishermen, the Ministry, and, above all, the consumers. Let us by all means stamp upon the profiteers, the racketeers and the

"blacketeers;" but let us see that the people get the fish.'

Major Thornton-Kemsley: It is not my intention to follow the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) into those icy regions to which he has directed the attention of the House. Nor is it my intention to stand long between the House and the statement which we are anxious to hear in the further speech which my right hon. and gallant Friend is to make. It seems to me not altogether inappropriate that the House should reassemble to discuss on one day matters which affect the welfare of our two oldest industries. We often talk in the House about agriculture' it sometimes seems to me that we do not talk nearly enough about the honourable and ancient calling of the men who "go down to the sea in ships" at all times and in all weathers in order to secure for us that food which is as essential a part of our war-time diet as it was a desirable component of our peace-time breakfast tables.
In the rugged coastal villages of my own constituency, most of the inshore fishermen are share fishermen. Three or four of them, or perhaps more, own between them the boat and the gear, and divide the proceeds of the fishing. Most of these men were naval reservists before the war began, and the youngest and most active of them are now away on service with the Fleet. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) was quite right in directing the attention of the House to the hard times which the survivors among these inshore fishermen have been facing. Many of them who are left to carry on with the share of the boats are veterans who had given up before, in some cases long before, the war began. They are now having to hold the show together to secure a difficult livelihood, not only for themselves, but for those who are now away on service. They are the lifeboat men, too. I remember that it was my privilege only a few months before the war to entertain in the precincts of this House the veteran coxswain of one of our lifeboats, who had left his native village, I think for the first time, in order to come to London to receive an award from Royal hands at the Royal National Lifeboat Institution's annual meeting. That old mariner left his native village again 10 days ago in


order to be one of three who went all the way south to Edinburgh to plead that this levy of 6d. should be withdrawn.
I think the House is in a little difficulty in this Debate in that we understand that Amendments have been made to this Order at the eleventh hour, which Amendments, as far as I have been able to ascertain, are not available in the Vote Office. We have been told that Clause 5 is rescinded, but I think I am right in saying that none of us has been able to see that officially. Therefore, we are in some difficulty. What I think is clear is that the levy is to be maintained until 31st December. Of course, we would have liked to have seen it taken off straight away. But we are hopeful that my right hon. and gallant Friend will take all these facts that have been placed before him during the last few weeks and in this Debate into consideration when he is deciding what form the levy of the future, if any, is to take. I am quite certain that my right hon. and gallant Friend, who knows the conditions in the fishing villages, and who himself comes from a part where fishing is, with agriculture, one of the greatest, as it is one of the most ancient, of industries, will give full weight to the appeal which is coming to him from the humble homes of men who live dangerously and whose womenfolk are companioned almost always with anxiety.

Major Lloyd George: I do not think it is necessary for me to assure the House of my sympathy with the fishermen, representing as I do a constituency which contains within it one of the biggest fishing ports in the country, but I think that hon. Members, if I may say so without disrespect, have talked about a good many things with which this Order has nothing whatever to do. The real purpose of the Order is to levy the 6d. I have heard about the Iceland agreement, which certainly has nothing to do with this Order. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) has talked about fish going bad, and although the figure which he gave sounds a large one, I can assure him that compared with peace time it is not. The hon. Member also spoke about drawing the red herring of excessive profits across the fishmonger's slab. I am sure he will be interested to know that red herrings do not come under the levy; they are excluded. As I have said, most of the points that have been raised have nothing to do with the Order.
The point is this: Some hon. Members have said that the levy is a cruel imposition on the fishermen. It is nothing of the kind. The price which fishermen obtain for whatever type of fish they catch is settled entirely without regard to the 6d. Therefore there are two points. What we are discussing is whether the 6d. should be levied or not. Whether the price paid for the various categories of fish to the fishermen is good enough is another point altogether. The 6d. levy has nothing whatever to do with the price obtained by the fishermen. If cod was fixed at a certain price—say 6s. 6d.—it would become 7s. If after investigation it was found that it could not be caught except at a loss and the price was made 8s., it would become 8s. 6d. The 6d. has nothing whatever to do with the price. It is an entirely separate question, but we are prepared at any time to consider it, because no one realises more than we do what tremendous risks we are asking fishermen to undertake, and no one will object to fair and good remuneration. There is no intention whatever of asking fishermen to provide food for us and not be adequately remunerated.
The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) talks about the price of fish to-day. I can assure him mat, as far as the big fishing fleets are concerned, prices are very much in excess, not of what they were in June when they were far too high, but in comparison with pre-war. But that has nothing whatever to do with the levy. If the price that we have decided is not good enough, let us have the arguments, and we will see what we can do about it, but the 6d. levy will still go on. We are simply using the trawler owners and fishermen as a machine for collecting this money. It is just the same as if I agreed with my hon. Friend to pay him so much a week while he was in my employ and also paid him 10s. a week for travelling expenses. As far as the trawler fleets are concerned, I do not think anyone will complain about the prices they are getting, but I appreciate that there is something to be said for further investigation in the case of inshore fishermen.
With regard to the various kinds of fish, we have data which show the prewar price, and therefore we can come to some reasonable decision as to what the increase should be. But prices vary so enormously round the coasts that it is


extremely difficult to get figures in the case of inshore fishermen, and that is why on the representations of my hon. Friends who represent districts where inshore fishermen operate we have promised to conduct a further investigation. It is simply no good saying, as my hon. Friend did, "Why did we not leave things as they were? For 24 months of war fish has been distributed; why did we not leave it where it was?" It was being distributed in certain places. We were anxious that, small as the catch was, it should be distributed as fairly as possible. And that is why the Order has been brought in, and the fact that at the moment the levy is collected by the owners or the fishermen themselves makes no difference to the price they get. If it was transferred to another section of industry to collect, the 6d. would come off the price.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Fish Sales (Charges) Order, 1941, dated 25th September, 1941, made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 30th September, be approved.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Solicitors Act, 1941.
2. Marriage (Members of His Majesty's Forces) Act, 1941.
3. Prolongation of Parliament Act, 1941.
4. Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1941.
5. Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1941.

PROROGATION.

HIS MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

Mr. Speaker: (standing in the Clerk's place at the Table): I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read. The

LORD CHANCELLOR, being one of the Lords Commissioners, delivered His Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of His Majesty's Command, as followeth:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

My Peoples have entered upon the third year of war with heightened vigour and resolution. I have seen the courage and fortitude with which they have endured savage attacks from the air, and I have watched with admiration the selfless devotion of the Civil Defence Forces.

During the past year My Forces, by sea, land and air, have continued, with the powerful support of the Armed Forces of My Allies, to defend the cause of freedom throughout the world. The enemy has added to the number of countries temporarily over-run, but the epic struggle of Greece and Yugoslavia, worthy of their glorious history, has inspired the civilised world.

I heartily welcome as an Ally the great Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. On the 12th July My Government and the Government of the Soviet Union agreed to aid each other in the war against Germany and to conclude no separate armistice or treaty of peace. The heroic resistance of the armies of the Soviet Union has won My deepest admiration. A Conference on aid to Russia between representatives of My Government and of the Governments of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been held in Moscow with eminently satisfactory results, and, in co-operation with the United States of America, My Empire is affording the Soviet Union all possible assistance against the common foe.

The life-time of this Parliament has been memorable for the strengthening of the already close ties between My Governments and Peoples and the Government and People of the United States of America. A striking illustration of this growing intimacy was afforded by the meeting at sea between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of My Government in the United Kingdom. On the seas and the oceans, commanded by our two Navies in closest fraternity, a


Charter was agreed upon and published to the world, which will stand as a beacon in history radiating resolution, justice and unselfish purpose.

My Navy has continued to attack the enemy wherever it has been able to find him. Aided by its Auxiliaries and the Fishing Fleet, it has maintained unceasing vigil and has kept open the seaways on which My gallant Merchant Navy, and the Merchant Fleets of My Allies, have brought an increasing flow of food-stuffs and munitions.

The position of My Forces in the Middle East has been greatly strengthened. The brilliant campaigns in East Africa, where the enemy, despite great numerical superiority, was evicted from the mountain fastnesses of Eritrea and Ethiopia and either destroyed or captured, prove the skill of My Commanders and the endurance of My Forces from many parts of the Empire. These operations, which augur well for the future, were rendered possible by the annihilation last winter of the hostile army which sought to invade Egypt from Cyrenaica.

My Air Force has carried the war into the enemy's territory and has attacked with growing power his industries, communications, naval bases and shipping. By the boldness of its assaults, it has compelled the enemy to keep large air formations in the West.

Developments in the Far East have engaged the close and constant attention of My Government, and it has been necessary to increase the Forces which defend My territories in those regions.

It has been a source of great gratification to Me that My Prime Ministers of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and New Zealand have found it possible to visit this country and confer with My Ministers in the United Kingdom. Valuable discussions have been held in Egypt with My Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa. These personal exchanges are of the utmost value to My Ministers in the prosecution of the war.

Members of the House of Commons.

I thank you for the increased provision you have made towards the cost of the war. The unprecedented measures you have taken have been whole-heartedly supported by My

People, who have willingly borne the heavy additional taxation imposed upon them and have also freely responded to the call for loans.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.

The War Damage Act for damage to property caused by enemy action has afforded immediate relief to many of My People, and the compensation which it provides has further strengthened the war economy of the country.

Under Providence, and thanks to the unexampled efforts of the seafaring and farming communities, the food supplies of My People are assured.

And I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.

Then a Commission for Proroguing the Parliament was read in the House of Lords.

After which the LORD CHANCELLOR said:

"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's Name and in obedience to His Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday, the twelfth day of November, one thousand nine hundred and forty-one, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued until Wednesday, the twelfth day of November, one thousand nine hundred and forty-one."

Mr. Speaker: It has been customary in this House for many years after the Prorogation of Parliament for Members of this House to come and shake hands with the Speaker on bidding him farewell. On this occasion, the time between our Prorogation and our re-assembly is so short that it seems to me the convenience of Members will be best served if, on this occasion, I bid you farewell from this place, and hope soon to meet again.

End of the Sixth Session (opened list November, 1940) of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament of the United, Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Fifth Year of the Reign of His Majesty King George the Sixth.